Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:28:36 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org>, marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r366841 - head/lang/tcl86/files Message-ID: <540490A4.20409@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <F4702D96-B141-4798-B23E-DE0408117AD7@adamw.org> References: <201409010731.s817Vrxf062753@svn.freebsd.org> <20140901074609.GA32100@FreeBSD.org> <65B530D9-4740-4A60-A2F5-40335A520C4E@adamw.org> <54048A3B.4030001@marino.st> <F4702D96-B141-4798-B23E-DE0408117AD7@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/1/2014 17:14, Adam Weinberger wrote: > On 1 Sep, 2014, at 11:01, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> >> As I said, the issue has been solved, and the solution is good. >> Nobody dislikes the new changes internally*, but patch-naming has >> turned into a impasse. > > Can I please request a partial commit of it? Just the stuff that > makes makepatch only update files that were actually changed, and > commit headers without timestamps? Seriously, let the naming > convention piece go for now, it is blocking everything else. This is probably the strategy of those that claim they don't care about patch names yet block the change on patch names. Once internal improvements are made the name changes proposal can effectively trashed. You've basically asked to resubmit the proposal without the name change because everyone knows part 2 would be blocked on the basis it's not a good enough reason by itself. >> * since today, antoine says he thinks -p option on diff is "ugly". >> it's a highly useful option so now we have yet another hurdle to >> jump. If not for phabric we could have had this in ports weeks >> ago, but now are stuck in an impasse (which I suspect was the >> outcome desired by the people that wanted it reviewed in phabric >> tbh) > > antoine is a perfectionist, and that’s exactly what portmgr needs to > be. This is NetBSD territory where 1 voice can silence 100. more than 1 person thinks it doesn't look ugly and it's useful too. The words are carefully chosen because "looks ugly" is half the reason of the patch name change proposal, so if we crush "looks ugly" as an aesthetic trivial opinion, we become hypocrits. check. /me moves king
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?540490A4.20409>